All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:45
January 23, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Man, I forgot poor Hillary.
Poor Hillary.
I totally missed this.
I thought she was doing a joint appearance this morning, but that was just the Senate.
She's got to go over and do this all over again at the house.
She got to go over and face those really mean Republicans in the house now.
And explain Benghazi to them.
Oh man.
It's all right, though.
The ruling class will continue to circle the wagons.
Great to have you back here, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network at a Limbaugh Institute.
For advanced conservative studies, the Junior Sayao family has sued the NFL over brain injuries.
A wrongful death lawsuit filed today, California Supreme or Superior Court, excuse me, in uh in San Diego, blames the National Football League for its acts or omissions that hid the dangers of repetitive blows to the head.
It says that Say by the way, you know there's now every every social issue needs an optic.
If you are going to advance a social cause, you need pictures.
That's how you hit the low information segment of the country.
You gotta show them pictures.
Primarily if you get them on TMZ ENETAM Tonight or the eentertainment or whatever, you get them there and you're home free.
And guess what?
They now have brain scan photos that supposedly show the brain damage of concussions.
In color.
Color brain scan photos, not pet scans.
This is new stuff.
And apparently a learned medical professional can point to that part of the brain.
See that right there, say where yellow is, where that bright red is or whatever color they're putting.
That's where the concussion happened.
That's when Junior Seo got hit by Rodney Harrison.
That's right there.
That's when it happened.
And that's all this issue needs is an optic.
And now that they got pictures of the brain, ostensibly after concussion damage, then that's that launches them.
Picture equals proof, you see, to low information juries, low information.
Low information individuals.
And so they now have the NFL, the Sayo lawsuit maintains the NFL knew.
And that the helmet manufacturers, they knew.
They knew, and they've been hiding it, and they've been lying to the players, and they've been covering this up.
They have been making it clear here.
Seyao developed chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
CTE from all of those hits to the head, accuses the NFL of deliberately ignoring and concealing evidence of the risks associated with traumatic brain injuries.
I hope you remember way back last year when I told you that this game was never going to be the same again.
Once now the forces of social change have gotten hold of it.
All bets are off.
The helmet manufacturer Riddell Incorporated, also being sued by the Sayow family, who say that Riddell was negligent in their design, testing, assembly, manufacture, marketing, and engineering of the helmets used by NFL players.
The Sayo lawsuit says the helmets were unreasonably dangerous and unsafe.
That's why there's a warning label on NFL helmets.
It's been on the helmet for a number of years.
I remember when I first saw it, I laughed.
Are you kidding me, I remember saying.
Warning labels on a professional football helmet?
As if the people don't know what they're doing, but that's exactly what's being maintained.
That Junior Seyo had no idea what he was doing.
He had no idea what he was getting into.
And everybody had lied to him, and every other NFL player, too, that they have been repeatedly lied to, and evidence had been covered up.
Now nobody knew how dangerous this game really was and how ineffective the helmets really are.
But Riddle and the other helmet manufacturers, too, they have warning labels.
I don't know if shoulder pads have warning labels on there or not, but I know the helmet does.
And here's what the warning label says on the helmet.
No helmet can prevent serious head or neck injuries a player might receive while participating in football.
Okay, so that's the warning label.
You put it on, you're acknowledging.
Just like the warning label on cigarettes.
But the Sayao family, and I don't mean to harp on them, it's going to be a whole bunch of people joining the suits like this, are saying that that doesn't matter.
The warning label further says do not use this helmet to butt ram or spear an opposing player.
They still do it.
The warning label says don't do it.
And yet the manufacturer's still being sued here.
The label says spearing ramming butting, violation of the football rules, and as such, use can result in severe head or neck injuries, paralysis, or death to you and possible injury to your opponent.
Contact in football may result in concussion brain injury, which no helmet can prevent.
All this is on the warning label.
Did you know this?
You didn't know this.
That's because I read to you is on the warning label of every NFL helmet, and not just NFL, but at every level.
And it's been out there for years, folks.
For years.
UCLA researchers led a team of scientists that used a chemical marker called FDDNP to measure the degree of brain damage in five retired players.
That marker latches on to the TO TAU proteins that build up in the brain when somebody suffers from Alzheimer's or other cognitive impairments like chronic traumatic encephalopathy, i.e.
concussions.
Doctors can then perform a routine uh positron emission tomography, PET scan, to see those chemical markers highlighting how many proteins there are and where they go.
So they can they can they've got their optic now.
See, there's the concussion.
There's the first one, there's a second one, there's the cumulative effect.
I remember I think I forget when the warning labels went on helmets, but the first warning label just said this helmet should not be used for head protection.
And I remember I well then what's it for then?
Of course it was just for indemnification purposes.
So anyway, that's that's the uh the latest.
And the point is they've got their optic now.
The forces for social change in football have their brain pictures.
They can now show low information, juries and others the damage.
Right there it is.
And every damage, every taut protein equals a certain number of dollars is the way this is gonna work.
By the way, Phil Mickelson would run sports.
Phil Mickelson as you apologized for talking about his 62 to 63% tax rate.
There were words surfaced a couple days ago that Nicholson was thinking of leaving California selling his house.
Prop 30 passed, that forced him out of a deal teamed by the San Diego Padres.
For crying out loud, I can't afford to buy anything with 63% of my income being taxed.
Says I may have to leave the state, sell my house, give up the Padres, and something happened.
All hell descended on Mickelson.
Nicholson is one of the one percent paying the freight for everybody, and yet he's the guy in fire, under fire.
He's not allowed to complain.
And I don't even want to say that he was complaining, but I wouldn't care if he was.
But he's not allowed.
He's supposed to sit there and take it.
He's supposed to sit there and smile at 63%.
And it's gonna get higher if Democrats have their way.
So somebody got to Mickel said, Look, bud, you can't, you can't start complaining.
You know when I first really became aware of how upper income people talk about.
I was never, I'll never forget this.
It was a Sunday morning brinkley show in ABC.
And it was back in the 90s, and it was back when Clinton wanted to eliminate the tax deductibility of CEO salaries above a million dollars.
You could deduct as a business expense whatever you paid your CEO up to a million dollars.
And after that, you lose the deductibility.
That was the change.
And that was, and by the way, athletes and actors were exempted.
It was just CEOs.
It was pure Democrat Party class envy, class warfare.
That's that's when stock options hit.
That's when CEO, that's when companies, okay, well, if we can't pay the people we want to hire to run our company salary, how can we make the job attractive?
That's when they created stock options and uh a number of other workarounds to get around Clinton's one million dollar exemption rule.
But I was watching this week with David Brinkley when this was all happening, and Andy Grove, the CEO of Intel, was the guest.
And they asked Andy Grove the question, what do you think about this rule?
And Andy Grove nowhere near it.
He didn't want to talk.
He's I think it was George Will.
Maybe George, I'm not gonna sit here and discuss these uh social concerns.
I'm not gonna that's not what he wasn't at all gonna complain.
He wasn't gonna complain whatsoever, not because he disagreed with it, because he knew that there was no gain in it.
Somebody that is a multimillionaire complaining about high taxes is not gonna get any sympathy from anybody except other high-tax people, and there aren't that many of them.
So anyway, Mickelson uh just blurts this stuff out in a stream of consciousness answer to a question, and there must have been all hell to send on this guy.
Uh I don't know what happened.
I don't know who got to him.
Might be his agent, said, hey, hey, Phil, you know, you can't, you gotta have to apologize here.
You've got to back off.
I mean, you're man of the people, you're doing these ads for big oil and whatever it is, you get back off.
So he goes out and he basically uh regrets speaking publicly on taxes.
He um said he apologized, he regretted not keeping his opinion to himself.
I remember last spring.
I do an annual spring fling.
Catherine and I get friends in and spend a weekend, and it's always a lot of fun, and it's great people.
And one of the discussion topics was the upcoming presidential race and campaign, and I said a lot of sports people at this spring fling.
And I said, you know, kind of it frustrates me.
Uh a lot of athletes who have a lot of influence with people, role model and all that, who in no way support Obama, no way support what's going on.
Why don't they speak up?
Why not make it candid and influence a lot of people?
A friend of mine said he rush.
Every one of these guys is idolized by the media, by the way.
Everybody that I'm I don't want to mention any names, but big-time quarterbacks and and uh shortstops, you know, running backs, golfers.
My friend said, if one of these guys speaks up, the media is going to go out and tar and feather this guy.
Doesn't matter.
The media is gonna destroy him, and don't forget Russian, these guys survive on their endorsements.
They th they survive by not being political.
Once you take a position on anything, you're statistically gonna have half the people here it disagree with you, and maybe that's why Michael Jordan, for the most part, doesn't get into politics.
Sometimes he can't help himself.
He's a big Democrat.
But he's even admitted, look, I I I hope Republicans buy Air Jordan Seuss.
You don't want to do anything to make them mad.
So athletes as a general rule are not gonna speak up, they're not gonna get political, they're not gonna get involved in saving the country because the sports media, which idolizes and loves them and treats them like they're the closest thing to God and royalty ever, will then turn on them.
And here's a living example of it.
Phil Mickelson is loved and adored by the sports media.
And he's cultivated that.
It's part of the image making process.
So I guarantee you, somebody, uh agent or maybe even one of his corporate uh sponsors.
Hey, Phil, you got a dialet back.
Uh we just don't want you going political.
So he did.
He apologized and said that he regretted not keeping his opinion to himself.
Now, during a press conference yesterday, Tiger Woods admitted that he moved to Florida in 1996 because of California's tax rates.
about 18 years, 17 years here ahead of Phil Mickelson.
A lot of athletes live in Florida for that very reason.
A lot of athletes live in the Orlando area.
That's where Woods lives.
Well, Tiger lives down here now.
He's got places, but but but they come here because there's no income tax.
And and the weather, golfers year-round practice and so forth, makes all the sense in the world.
So Woods, during a press conference, just admitted it.
I moved out of here back in 1996 for that reason.
Woods it was at Tory Pines in uh in La Jolla.
He said, I enjoy Florida, but I I understand um what what Phil I think was uh was trying to say.
Now there's a way out of this for these guys.
Now Tigers in trouble too.
Tigers admitted that he uh folks, look, I d not I'm not trying to put myself in their league, but I moved out of New York to a no-income tax for that reason.
And I am audited every year by the state of New York, still after being gone since 1997.
I'm in the middle of a nine-month audit right now for just the last year.
And I didn't live there, didn't work there.
I didn't earn any money in New York, but doesn't matter.
It's just they're so cash-strapped, they've got a division in Albany, I'm convinced just follows people who leave and move to no income tax states.
I remember I announced on the program one day, and I got emails, we got phone calls from people who accused me of being unpatriotic by screwing New York, by abandoning New York, by moving somebody.
I said, Why am I not smart?
Why is this not an intelligent decision?
Why shouldn't I go?
So if I've got the opportunity to keep more of what I earn, why shouldn't I do that?
My money, I earn it, I'll put it to much better use than some bunch of government bureaucrats.
I spend my money in the private sector, I employ people, I provide benefits, I'm a generous guy.
What what what what harm could it be if me being in control of my money?
You, you, you selfish.
You unpit I had all I'm sure Mickelson got the same thing.
So anyway, what Tiger and Phil could do if they both come out in favor of gay marriage, everything will be fine.
Okay, we're back.
Um what do I want to do here?
HR, is Janet in Manhattan cool.
Is she cool with holding on to the next segment?
Uh okay, make sure.
Make sure she's been on hole for a long time.
I really want to talk to her.
Here's uh Frank in Chicago.
Frank, great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Rush, you don't know what an honor this is.
It's I spent ten years trying to get on your show at different times at different things that have invoked my interest.
Please allow me to thank you for many, many years of guidance, support.
My grandfather and I, when I was a kid, he's passed now.
But we used to sit on our porch before the Cub games will come on, we would flip over to you and we would listen to you and some of my best memories, some of the things that get me through some of the times now in my life are becoming cute.
I I remember conversations like that with uh with my grandfather.
I'm honored that um you and your grandfather sat around and listened to me, and I appreciate that.
Some of our best memories.
Um look, Rush, let me say this.
I'm an I'm a kid who grew up in the eighties.
I'm a Reagan kid.
My political sort of uh awakening came under him.
I'm very fortunate that that happened for me.
What today watching this, and which is what I call about today watching this thing disgusted me.
I don't know what has happened to our party.
I don't know what's going on, but all I know is people like yourself, people like Reagan, I mean, they're just gone.
We're not our our leaders are are horrible.
This was like a campaign ad for Hillary Clinton, forgot you.
No, I'll tell you again what this was today.
I'm I'm I'm very serious, folks, when I say this.
I'm and I I mean this uh at age sixty-two, uh, I'm still learning.
I'm a babe in the woods on a lot of things.
And uh, you know, idealism crashes every day with me.
There I I still do have idealistic desires, tendencies, hopes when it comes to the country, the people who run it, but every day uh I learned a lot.
And I'm telling you what happened today was the what I call uh uh and what others call the ruling class, the the the political elite saw a vulnerability.
Any time a ranking member of the government who is already in the protected class, which is the Democrat Party, uh is in the crosshairs, they're gonna circle the wagons and protect that person because they're protecting themselves, and they're protecting the institution of the government, in this case the State Department, they are not gonna permit a black eye.
And the the the purpose of this not only to cleanse Hillary and her record and setting up her future, but this was about cleansing the oversight people and cleansing everybody in Congress and the Senate or whatever that was supposed to make sure this kind of stuff didn't happen and held people accountable.
That didn't happen.
This was circle the wagons time uh and and put on a dog and pony show to make the people think it's been dealt with.
Let me put this another way, folks, uh very simply.
What was the consensus of this hearing?
What did Mrs. Clinton ultimately say was the problem in Benghazi?
They needed more money.
The real agenda here, the real objective at the end of the day of this hearing was State Department needs more money.
The consulates need more money.
The CIA stations need more money.
Uh we need more funding.
And at the end of the day, at the end of the Senate version of these hearings today, everybody was on that page.
We need more funding.
The deaths happened, we weren't prepared, we didn't have enough money.
We just our resources are spread thin.
Two wars that Bush started, Al uh Afghanistan have got Al Qaeda running loose and all in Iraq and so forth.
So this was this was uh in truth, what what happened today, what's going to happen this afternoon with Hillary over at the House is really the ruling class staging a performance so that they can once again make the case for growing government.
We need more money, we need more uh consulates, we need more people, more security, we need uh it's a terrible lesson that we've learned.
Sorry that this happened.
Four brave Americans are dead, which I take very personally.
I know these people are very, very but it's at the end of the day, the ruling class makes a pitch to expand the ruling class.
The political elites at the end of the day have laid the groundwork for greasing their own skids.
And that's what this was today.
And this is not a cynical view.
I'm just telling you what I heard everybody say.
State department government needs more money.
That was the consensus.
There wasn't one person when Mrs. Clinton said that it was a funding problem, that we need more resources.
There wasn't one senator stood up and said, Oh, I think we got plenty of money here, Mrs. Clinton.
I don't get surprised.
That wasn't said.
Not I didn't hear it said.
Now I don't know Rand Paul went into pretty good, and so did McCain.
But McCain let it drop after he got his statement in, but the questions was kind of Rand Paul said if I'd have been present, I'd have fired you.
And that was as tough as it got.
But that's one guy.
One guy.
Every base was covered.
And as far as uh for those of us that are considered a low information people are concerned, uh our concerns were dealt with.
And now they move on.
And there will now be the appropriate requests for additional funding to ensure that this kind of tragic event never ever happens again.
Because one time is one time too many.
We can't afford to lose American treasure in this way.
And with additional funding and additional resources and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And so the political elites take care of themselves.
Now I mentioned going into the break at the top of the hour, that the one of the best ways the ruling class stays exclusive is the progressive income tax.
And very simple, and Phil Mickelson illustrates it in a way.
The progressive income tax is the number one obstacle to individuals accruing wealth.
And wealth equals power.
And the vice versa.
Power equals wealth or translates to wealth.
It's a closed club.
It's a very small bunch of people, in truth, compared to the population.
The way you get into this club is usually via your university or your family, uh, legacy, family name, what have you.
And once you're in the club, the objective is to keep everybody else out of it.
You don't want the club growing.
You don't want the clique getting bigger.
And one of the quickest ways to keep people from becoming powerful is to make sure they don't become wealthy.
And the best way to keep people from becoming wealthy is to raise their taxes.
Their income taxes, the progressive income tax is the number one tool that the ruling class has to protect itself.
If Phil Mickelson's paying 62, 63% of his income in taxes, even if he makes 45 million dollars a year, that is still a huge chunk.
And at some point Phil's gonna say it's not worth it.
He's on the verge of it.
Now, contrast Phil Mickelson with Warren Buffett.
Contrast Phil Mickelson with Bill Gates.
Phil Mickelson's money is not even pocket change for those two guys.
However, Mickelson was out saying, I had to give up my dream of owning the part of the Padres, I might have to leave California.
Sixty-two, sixty-three percent.
It doesn't make any sense for me to live here.
The roads in California are not that much better than they are anywhere else.
The weather I can find it somewhere else.
I mean, what what what's anybody getting for their 63% in California?
It's one way of looking at it.
But Buffett and Gates, what do they do?
They run around, claim they're not taxed enough.
They run around and say, eh, my secretary is paying a higher tax rate than I am.
That's not fair, blah, blah.
And what happens?
Everybody's sympathetic to those guys, and nobody cares how much money they have.
In fact, they're respected and admired.
Buffett, Gates, and what do they do?
They run around and they advocate higher taxes on the rich.
And in the process, they inoculate themselves from the treatment Nicholson got.
It's all a game.
They've mastered it.
And so the screaming hordes who are upset at all the people who have money are not going to be upset at Buffett or Gates, and they're not going to make a mad dash for their money because Buffett and Gates are on their side, they think.
Buffett and Gates are out there basically saying I shouldn't have the money I've got.
The Clintons do the same thing.
I don't need that tax increase.
Uh tax cut, I don't need that tax cut.
You know, Hillary and I, we're making more money, we got more money we need.
I mean, we're we're set here, uh, wealthy people like us, we we don't we don't need this tax cut.
And so people say, Oh, the Clintons are wonderful people.
They realize they have more money than they need.
Now, nobody ever sees the Clintons giving any of it away.
Uh liberals don't spend their own money on stuff.
They spend everybody else's money.
They don't give much to charity.
They make us do it with taxes and all the rest.
And they get the credit for it.
When they don't give much.
But while all this is going on, all of these ruling class people are out there ripping and trashing themselves, essentially.
I got more money than I need.
I don't need all this.
I don't need that tax cut.
And so by extension, neither does Phil Mickelson.
And neither is anybody else in the top one, but they don't need that tax cut.
And so the screaming hordes who are upset at the wealthy end up loving Buffett and Gates and hating Mickelson.
But of the three, who is being the more honest or the most honest?
Mickelson.
I don't see these guys, I mean, they're not giving their money to government.
Gates and Buffett, you know, putting their money in Gates' charity, but they're not giving it to Obama.
And they didn't give it to Clinton.
And Clinton isn't giving his money to the government.
They want everybody else to, but they don't.
But they talk the talk.
Well, I don't need it anymore.
I got everything I need.
And so they uh are exempted.
They're exempted from media criticism.
They're exempted from the uh oh what is it?
The uh the image, the the the whole notion that the rich are a bunch of sleaze bags, they're exempted from all that.
Because they are they criticize it.
The Kennedys did the same thing.
And Mickelson made the mistake.
Like...
Of being natural, honest, and normal.
What the hell is this?
63%?
This is absurd.
And he's the guy that has to apologize.
Okay, Janet in Manhattan's coming next.
I'm mentioning her because I wanted to hang on.
We'll be back and get her call after this.
Don't go away.
I mentioned earlier today that uh Mrs. Clinton, miraculously this week, has retired twenty-five million dollars of campaign debt from her presidential run in 2008.
And I don't think it's a coincidence that she retires her campaign debt and does the Benghazi congressional appearance the same week.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
But about the debt, the Clintons wouldn't even pay off her debt.
They raised money.
They asked others for donations to pay off her debt.
And they're going to use their own money for that.
And yet the Clintons are thought to be compassionate and wonderful and friends of the little guy.
When in truth the Clintons and every other Democrat believes in income tax policies that prevent the accrual of wealth by individuals.
And that's what the progressive income tax is.
Janet in Manhattan, I'm really glad you waited.
I appreciate your patience.
Thank you so much.
Hello.
Thank you, thank you.
At the risk of sounding like everybody else who calls, I can't believe I got on, but I did.
So I'll get to my point.
Um I wanted to take issue with what you said about African Americans having being overrepresented in the public sector as opposed to the private sector.
Now, KG about what you think the reason for that is.
Oh no, Janet, wait, that wasn't me saying it.
That was I was reading from a news story.
Right.
I I'm just telling you what was in the it is uh it is a Reuters story out of Chicago.
No, no, I'm not questioning that it's a fact.
It is a fact, but I was questioning what your reasons might be, why you think that is, and I'll tell you what I think.
I don't know exactly what you were implying, but uh you seem to be implying that that African Americans are overrepresented in public sector jobs because they like it that way.
And I would suggest there is lots of research to prove that that's not the case.
For example, uh about two years ago, as recently as two years ago, there was a study done by a major business uh college, and I can't remember which one.
People can Google it, I'm sure and find it.
And the experiment they did was they sent out a bunch of resumes, and one group of resumes, they put African American sounding names on, you know, LaShawn, Washington, Latoya, Jefferson, that kind of thing.
And an identical, identical group Of resumes was sent out with names that did not have African American sound to them.
And surprise, surprise, the African American sounding named resumes got many fewer callbacks than the other ones.
It's sort of like the job version of redlining when in the loans.
I'm not denying that there's discrimination out there.
Okay, I thought you were.
No, no, no, no.
That's not that's not I'm I was merely reacting to the story.
Most Afric the majority of African Americans work in the government.
They work in the in the Well, I don't think did they say the majority, or did they just say more than would be proportional to their representation in society.
More than yeah, more than would be their their representation of society.
Nearly one in five, twenty percent of African American workers hold government jobs, male clerks, firefighters, long tradition.
You didn't say why you thought that was.
You you were very coy about that, and that's not like you usually come out and say what you mean.
So why don't you think?
Well, I've got no I've I've got a theory about it.
I just I happen to think that as Democrats, most African Americans have a view of government that it is their biggest friend, that government's the place that's gonna protect them, that government is the safest, government's the fairest.
I I think they've been oriented to think that way.
Well, to the extent that they do find it easier to get those jobs, you know, you take a civil service test, nobody knows what color you are, and you cannot by law be discriminated against.
You send out a resume, and you also cannot legally be discriminated against, but de facto it does happen.
So if you were African American and you wanted uh to be sure you could get a job with some security and some, you know, good pay and pension, what would you do?
After you sent out ten resumes and got rejected or no call back, you might go to the government because in that sense it is safer for you.
It is more guaranteed.
Well, this is a chicken or egg question.
I mean, you're you're arguing that government's the last option, and I'm simply telling you that I think for many it's the first, simply because of the way the government is portrayed in people, like it's being portrayed in a government is the end all in everybody's life right now.
Your interaction with government is what's going to define you as a citizen.
That's what Obama really is is all about.
Well let me let me read to you from from here's something from the article.
This is a this is a pat.
There is a long tradition of the public sector being more friendly or less hostile to African American workers, said Robert Ziger, emeritus professor history at the University of Florida.
It's true.
The post office is the best example.
So you think he's making your point.
Yes.
Absolutely.
Uh you know, you can research that.
I wish I could give you a chapter and verse or a website on that.
Well, you don't have to.
I don't I don't I don't disagree with you.
The point of the story here is that the government is massively cutting jobs in the post office, and as such, a greater percentage of people losing their jobs to the post office are going to be African Americans.
Yes, that's the right.
And the point of the story is how unfair that is.
Yes, but isn't that because of the Republican conservative mantra that government is the enemy and public sector workers are getting too many benefits?
I'm sorry, but it's that's why they're cutting those jobs because they're cutting the funding for them.
It's because hostility towards government and wait a second.
No, no.
Republicans don't have any power.
This is Obama doing this.
Oh, the Congress is Republican, isn't it?
The House of Representatives, they have a lot of power.
They don't vote a budget.
You really do you really want to try to make the point that the Republicans are cutting post office jobs?
Yes.
You're smarter than that.
No, no.
You can't possibly believe that.
That's that's very patronizing.
The Republicans are making the post office go broke.
You know why the post office is in trouble?
Because under the Bush administration some years ago, and the Republican um Congress, they passed a requirement that nobody else has to meet, that the post office has to fund its health benefits for seventy-five years in advance.
Oh, yes, you can do that too, Rush.
Unfair.
It's the unions that made the post office go broke.
Janet.
It's not going to be.
It's the unions that made the post office go broke.
It's the you know with the post office, what are they doing to the post office just announced they're raising the price of a stamp?
You know what that's going to result in?
Fewer people mailing letters.
It's just like new government, subway writership down, raise prices.
Airlines, fewer people flying, they lower the fares.
The s The price of a stamp ought to be coming down if you want to increase volume.
They don't know what they're doing.
Unions, health care, and so forth, but the idea that Republicans are cutting.
There is no cutting.
What's happening is a reallocation of resources.
Budget's not getting smaller.
The government's not getting smaller.
It's growing.
Obama has decided he wants that money for health care.
Obama's decided he wants that money for stimulus.
Obama's decided he wants that money for whatever else.
It's not the Republicans doing this.
If it were, I'd be the first one applauding some fiscal responsibility.
Republicans aren't doing anything in this regard.
They're giving Obama everything he wants.
Every budget agreement that he wants, he gets.
The Republicans are caving left and right.
Yeah, you're smarter than that, Janet.
I know you are.
That law that Janet was talking about that required the post office to fully fund health care benefits for all those years out in the future, that law was passed in 2006.
I know the law that she's talking about.
And that law has stood in...
That law could have been changed by the Democrats and Obama when they had total control of D.C. after 2006 when Pelosi took over.
It could have happened the first two years of the Obama regime.
But nobody's decided to change it.
The post office is a convenient dumping ground where the government can throw all the problems because nobody has a great love for the post office out there.
It's all a game, folks.
We got to take a break.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection